DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. Pointe-au-Pic, Canada, July 25, 1928. My dear George: I have your letter of July 3d, and am delighted to read it and to follow you and Mrs. Sutherland in your delightful journey through Italy. My wife’s sister, Miss Maria Herron, has done a great deal of traveling in Italy and elsewhere, and she says that you have marked out for yourselves one of the most delightful trips in the World. I have been through part of it myself, and therefore know enough to congratulate you. I sincerely hope that you find Cadenabbia just as good now as it was when you wrote the letter, and that you find that your rest is accomplishing the result that your doctor had in mind. Of course we are most anxious about the election of Hoover, and I am bound to say that I think the Republicans feel that the chances are strongly in favor of Hoover’s election, but I don’t know how wisely they judge. There are so many cross currents in the election that it is hard to calculate what their effect will be, but as the campaign opens, it is fairly clear that the farm question is entirely out of the picture. Even old Norris says that they can not have another party, and the consequence is that if Smith is going to win, he has got to do it with New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, and by a retention of all the southern States. The difficulty that the Democratic party is facing is the very serious threat made by the Baptists and the Methodists and the drys in the South to organize a Democratic ticket in each State with the electors for Hoover, and induce the Republicans in those States to enter no ticket at all. These movements seem to be serious in several States. North Carolina is one, Tennessee is another, Kentucky is another, and Missouri and Oklahoma are others. Smith has made a mistake, I think, the selection of the Chairman of his committee, Rasgob who is one of the Vice-Presidents of the -2- great automobile company, who is a Catholic, and who announces that he has just come in for the purpose of defeating prohibition. He has moved the campaign committee’s headquarters from its regular place to the home of his corporation, all of which of course is communicated at once to the drys throughout the South. My son Robert was in Texas attending to some business just a week ago, and he says that the newspapers are full of defections from the Democratic party who decline to vote for Smith. Now all this may mean not so much because of the difficulty of organizing a movement of this kind through the southern States, but there is a Republican party in North Carolina, there is one in Tennessee, there is one in Kentucky, and there is one in Missouri and also in Oklahoma, and Smith could carry his ringing wet States and still not have a majority in the Electoral College, if he loses those five States that I have mentioned. But as I am a long time out of politics, my judgment is not worth having, but such as it is I put it in. You may have seen the severe criticisms of our judgment in the wire tapping case, but I think the more that the case is read and understood, the less effective will be the eloquence and denunciation of Brandeis and Holmes. I feel quite sure that we are right, and that this will be ultimately recognized. We were able to come up here and reach here on the 6th of June. Then we went back to New Haven for my fiftieth anniversary from the 16th to the 20th, and then returned here. I caught a little cold in New Haven, and it has rather pursued me here, though I suppose I have no real reason to complain of it, but a summer cold hangs on, and this season in May and June was so infernally wet that it was difficult to get rid of a cold. I have been working a bit as far as I could on certioraris, but the great mass of them remain and are not yet prepared for my consideration by my Law Clerk. I have had the briefs in -3- the Chicago Drainage case, but I have just been too lazy and too much out of touch to attempt to write on the opinion. I hope I shall be better able to do that during the month of August. My daughter is here with her two children and her husband in a separate house on our place. My son Robert, who was a delegate-at-large at the Kansas City Convention from Ohio for Hoover, has come here with his wife and four boys. My brother Horace is here, so that we have a full house. They all, but my boy Robert, will be with us until late in September. My son Charlie, the one who tried the Remus case, is running for office again and has a primary on the 14th of August. He has a very decided opposition, because the primary involves a charter or reform ticket and the regular ticket. I have felt considerable doubt as to his success. My other boy who is here is a regular Republican on that issue, but of course he is for Charlie, and he tells me that he thinks Charlie will be nominated, but I have my doubts. However, there is a good deal worse that could come to the boy than being defeated for office. He has had a very good experience and will be quite prepared to come back to the practice. He will be with us here I hope after the primary, about the 15th or 16th of August, and will remain for a month. My boy Bob will come back to my birthday party, so that we shall have the eleven grandchildren I hope on that occasion. The campaign will be on with all fervor when you get back, and you will probably know as much about it as we who are here. I received a very sweet letter from Mrs. Sutherland about the flowers I sent to the steamer, and I am very glad that she said they lasted a long time, as that type of rose does. I did not answer her letter, because I did not know where to answer it, and I hope she will therefore excuse my apparent remissness in this matter. -4- I do hope you will write me again and tell me of your satisfaction in the treatment that your doctor has recommended, and that you will come back ready for the fray, of which we shall have much in the coming term. Van stayed in Washington for some little time and found a good deal to do in helping me to decide some points that had to be decided for the Clerk. He took his wife to Hot Springs, Virginia, and found a very comfortable place for her, but I think that by this time she must be with him up in the woods in Ontario. He spoke of her progress with satisfaction when he last wrote just before he left for the North. I haven’t heard from any of the others as yet, although I hope to. I hope to have a letter from Pierce Butler. He is down, as you know, near Biarritz. I sincerely hope that they will find some comfort for that afflicted daughter of theirs in the trip they are taking. Mrs. Taft joins me in love to you and Mrs. Sutherland, and hopes that you may write us again. As ever, Most affectionately yours, William H. Taft Hon. George Sutherland, c/o Brown Shipley & Company, 123 Pall Mall, London, England. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Justices
    The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Appointment of Hugo L. Black
    The University of Chicago Law Review VOLUME 41 NUMBER 1FALL 1973 A Klansman Joins the Court: The Appointment of Hugo L. Black William E. Leuchtenburgj I. THE NOMINATION On August 12, 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, rebounding from the worst setback of his long Presidency, took the first of a series of steps toward creating what historians would one day call "the Roose- velt Court." Galling defeat had come less than a month before when the Senate had killed his scheme to add a Justice to the Supreme Court for every member aged seventy or over who did not resign or retire. The original plan would have allowed the President to name as many as six new Justices, but after a bitter 168-day fight, the measure was buried, amid loud rejoicing from FDR's opponents. Roosevelt was not finished yet, however, for one legacy of the protracted struggle was the creation of a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and it was the President's prerogative to nominate a successor. The choice he finally made would trigger an acrimonious controversy and would have a momentous im- pact on the disposition of the Court. The vacancy resulted, at least indirectly, from Roosevelt's "Court- packing" plan. The President had advanced his bold proposal in February because he was frustrated by the performance of the Supreme Court, particularly the conservative "Four Horsemen"--Willis Van t De Witt Clinton Professor of History, Columbia University. This article is an expanded version of a paper presented as the second annual William Winslow Crosskey Lecture in Legal History at The University of Chicago Law School on February 28, 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • The Clerks of the Four Horsemen (Part II, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler), 40 J
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 3-1-2015 The leC rks of the Four Horsemen (Part II, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler) Barry Cushman Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Barry Cushman, The Clerks of the Four Horsemen (Part II, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler), 40 J. Sup. Ct. Hist. 55 (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1138 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Clerks of the Four Horsemen (Part II, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler) BARRY CUSHMAN This is the second part of a two-part Ontario, Widdifield moved to Michigan as a article. Please see volume 39, no. 3, pages young boy in 1880 and was naturalized in 368-424 for the Introduction and Part I, Detroit in 1896. He was admitted to practice in discussing the clerks to James C. McReynolds Michigan in 1898, and in Massachusetts and Willis Van Devanter. in 1904. Early in his career, Widdifield handled collections in the office of a Detroit lawyer and practiced with the Traverse City, Michigan firm The Sutherland Clerks of Gilbert & Widdifield. He then moved to Pittsfield, Massachusetts, where he was secre- Justice Sutherland served from 1922 to tary and law assistant to the president of the 1938, but during that time he had only four Stanley Electrical Company.2 He first came to clerks.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Sutherland Reconsidered Samuel R
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 62 | Issue 2 Article 10 3-2009 Justice Sutherland Reconsidered Samuel R. Olken Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Samuel R. Olken, Justice Sutherland Reconsidered, 62 Vanderbilt Law Review 639 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol62/iss2/10 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Justice Sutherland Reconsidered Samuel R. Olken* IN TRO D U CTIO N ............................................................................... 639 I. SUTHERLAND AND THE PROBLEM OF REPUTATION .............. 642 II. THE CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL TRADITION .......................... 653 III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY OF G EORGE SUTHERLAND ......................................................... 660 A. Individual Liberty as the Cornerstoneof A m erican Dem ocracy ............................................... 660 B. FactionalAversion and the Equal Operation of th e L a w ................................................................ 663 C. Constitutional Conservatism and JudicialR eview ....................................................... 665 IV. ECONOMIC LIBERTY AND FACTIONAL AVERSION ................. 667 A . Liberty of Contract..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Clerks of the Four Horsemen, 39 J
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2014 The leC rks of the Four Horsemen Barry Cushman Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Courts Commons, and the Legal Commons Recommended Citation Barry Cushman, The Clerks of the Four Horsemen, 39 J. Sup. Ct. Hist. 386 (2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/628 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Clerks of the Four Horsemen (Part I) BARRY CUSHMAN Recent years have witnessed a flowering Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and of scholarship concerning the Supreme Court Pierce Butler—thus have received little clerkship. Yet most of this literature focuses on attention. With the exception of Sutherland, the more modern Justices. And for the Justices these more “conservative” contemporaries of who served in the years between Justice Holmes and Brandeis are typically rated as Horace Gray’s appointment in 1882, when the judicial “failures.”1 The biographical litera- Supreme Court clerkship was created, and ture on each of them is not nearly as thick,2 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s appointment of Hugo and the remaining private papers are neither as Black in 1937, the literature leans heavily extensive nor as revealing.3 And only two of toward those generally thought to be “liberal”: the thirty‐five young men who clerked for Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hughes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate But
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1992 The uH ghes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate but Equal Doctrine A.Leon Higginbotham Jr. William C. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Higginbotham, A.Leon Jr. and Smith, William C., "The uH ghes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate but Equal Doctrine" (1992). Minnesota Law Review. 793. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/793 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The William B. Lockhart Lecture* The Hughes Court and the Beginning of the End of the "Separate But Equal" Doctrine A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr.**and William C. Smith***/**** A century ago, the distinguished abolitionist, statesman and former slave, Frederick Douglass, pondered whether blacks would ever be full and equal participants in the American dream. He asked: [Can] American justice, American liberty, American civilization, American law, and American Christianity ... be made to include and protect alike and forever all American citizens in the rights which have been guaranteed to them by the organic and fundamental laws of the land?1 * This Essay is an expanded and annotated version of the William B. Lockhart Lecture Judge Higginbotham delivered at the University of Minnesota Law School on November 28, 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Justices of the Supreme Court
    20688_Tables-Lists.qxd 8/27/07 2:36 PM Page A-14 Justices of the Supreme Court Term of Years of Life Term of Years of Life Service Service Span Service Service Span John Jay 1789–1795 5 1745–1829 Melville W. Fuller 1888–1910 21 1833–1910 John Rutledge 1789–1791 1 1739–1800 David J. Brewer 1890–1910 20 1837–1910 William Cushing 1789–1810 20 1732–1810 Henry B. Brown 1890–1906 16 1836–1913 James Wilson 1789–1798 8 1742–1798 George Shiras, Jr. 1892–1903 10 1832–1924 John Blair 1789–1796 6 1732–1800 Howell E. Jackson 1893–1895 2 1832–1895 Robert H. Harrison 1789–1790 — 1745–1790 Edward D. White 1894–1910 16 1845–1921 James Iredell 1790–1799 9 1951–1799 Rufus W. Peckham 1895–1909 14 1838–1909 Thomas Johnson 1791–1793 1 1732–1819 Joseph McKenna 1898–1925 26 1843–1926 William Paterson 1793–1806 13 1745–1806 Oliver W. Holmes 1902–1932 30 1841–1935 John Rutledge* 1795 — 1739–1800 William D. Day 1903–1922 19 1849–1923 Samuel Chase 1796–1811 15 1741–1811 William H. Moody 1906–1910 3 1853–1917 Oliver Ellsworth 1796–1800 4 1745–1807 Horace H. Lurton 1910–1914 4 1844–1914 Bushrod Washington 1798–1829 31 1762–1829 Charles E. Hughes 1910–1916 5 1862–1948 Alfred Moore 1799–1804 4 1755–1810 Willis Van Devanter 1911–1937 26 1859–1941 John Marshall 1801–1835 34 1755–1835 Joseph R. Lamar 1911–1916 5 1857–1916 William Johnson 1804–1834 30 1771–1834 Edward D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Progressiveness of the Lochner Court
    Denver Law Review Volume 75 Issue 2 Article 5 January 2021 The Progressiveness of the Lochner Court Michael J. Phillips Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Michael J. Phillips, The Progressiveness of the Lochner Court, 75 Denv. U. L. Rev. 453 (1998). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF THE LOCHNER COURT MICHAEL J. PHILLIPS* In 1913, the legal historian Charles Warren published an article en- titled "The Progressiveness of the United States Supreme Court."' Con- trary to charges that the Court was a reactionary obstacle to social legis- lation, Warren maintained that it had actually "been steady and consis- tent in upholding all State legislation of a progressive type."2 According to Warren, the Court had rejected over ninety-five percent of the Four- teenth Amendment due process and equal protection challenges it con- sidered during the years 1887 to 191 . Of the successful challenges, furthermore, the vast majority involved "private rights of property," and very few concerned "social justice" legislation.' This record, Warren concluded, showed "the responsiveness of the Court to the changing needs of the times," and revealed it as "a bulwark to the State police power, not a destroyer." Needless to say, Warren's view of the old Court's (or Lochner Court's)6 Fourteenth Amendment decisions has not been the dominant view.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty: Constitutional Conservatism and the Problem of Factions
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 6 (1997-1998) Issue 1 Article 2 December 1997 Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty: Constitutional Conservatism and the Problem of Factions Samuel R. Olken Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Repository Citation Samuel R. Olken, Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty: Constitutional Conservatism and the Problem of Factions, 6 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1 (1997), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol6/iss1/2 Copyright c 1997 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj .WILLIAM & MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL VOLUME 6 WINTER 1997 ISSUE 1 JUSTICE GEORGE SUTHERLAND AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY: CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM AND THE PROBLEM OF FACTIONS Samuel R. Olken* Most scholars have viewed Justice George Sutherland as a conserva- tive jurist who opposed government regulation because of his adherence to laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism, or because of his devo- tion to natural rights. In this Article, Professor Olken analyzes these widely held misperceptions of Justice Sutherland's economic liberty jurisprudence, which was based not on socio-economic theory, but on historical experience and common law. Justice Sutherland, consistent with the judicial conservatism of the Lochner era, wanted to protect individual rights from the whims of polit- ical factions and changing democratic majorities. The Lochner era dif- ferentiation between government regulations enacted for the public wel- fare and those for the benefit of certain groups illuminates this underly- ing tenet of Justice Sutherland's jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 35 Issue 3 Practitioner's Guide to the 1998-1999 Supreme Court Term Spring 2000 You Can't Always Get What You Want: Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments Paul Finkelman Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul Finkelman, You Can't Always Get What You Want: Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments, 35 Tulsa L. J. 473 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol35/iss3/2 This Supreme Court Review Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Finkelman: You Can't Always Get What You Want: Presidential Elections and Su YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT... : PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS Paul Finkelmant The President elected in 2000 could have as many as four quick appointments to the Supreme Court. When the new president takes office, in January, 2001, Justice John Paul Stevens will be 80 and Chief Justice Rehnquist will be 76 years old, both well past retirement age. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg have both fought off cancer and on inauguration day they will be 71 and 67 years old, respectively. It is not unreasonable to fear that either or both might have to leave the bench for health reasons. The rest of the Court, on the other hand, is relatively young, ranging from Justice Clarence Thomas who will be 52 to Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy who will both be 64.1 On the other hand, it is also possible that no one will leave the high court in the next four years.
    [Show full text]
  • Concentration, Cooperation, Control and Competition
    THE ORIGINS OF THE FTC: CONCENTRATION, COOPERATION, CONTROL, AND COMPETITION Marc Winerman* Concentration and co-operation are conditions imperatively essential for industrial advance; but if we allow concentration and co-operation there must be control in order to protect the people, and adequate control is only possible through the administrative commission. Hence concentration, co-operation, and control are the key words for a scien- tific solution of the mighty industrial problem which now confronts this nation. —Theodore Roosevelt, quoting Charles Van Hise, in accepting the 1912 Progressive Party nomination.1 [Standard Oil Co. v. United States2] will be a signal for the voluntary breaking up of all combinations in restraint of trade within the inhibi- tion of the [Sherman Act]. —William Howard Taft, September 18, 1911.3 [T]he proper role of the government is to encourage not combination, but co-operation. —Letter of Louis D. Brandeis, November 11, 1911.4 I don’t want a smug lot of experts to sit down behind closed doors in Washington and play providence to me. —Woodrow Wilson, September 17, 1912.5 [A]n attempt was very properly made . to provide tribunals which would distinctly determine what was fair and what was unfair competi- * Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission. The views expressed herein are the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or any Commissioner. The author thanks William Kovacic, James May, Bruce Freedman, James Hurwitz, Theodore Gebhard, Hillary Greene, Robert Lande, Stephen Calkins, Marilyn Kerst, and Tara Koslov for helpful comments. The author also acknowl- edges the help of Elaine Sullivan, other staff of the Federal Trade Commission library, and Tab Lewis of the National Archives.
    [Show full text]